Science for Communists?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Actually, I've no objection to DJP's schema as one possibily, even probably, useful way of understanding the passing world of phenomena. What we are arguing about is not the content of the theory (and of theories in general) but their status: are they uncovering "the Truth" and representing the world as it "really is" or are they simply useful ways of describing and understanding the world? You're the one that has described the schema, mentioned by DJP, as purporting to represent "the Truth", not him.

So, you're arguing that DJP shares your 'method', and can similarly 'not object' to a schema that maintains that 'the physical can supervene on the ideal'?I thought that DJP was arguing the opposite, that 'the ideal supervenes on the physical'.Plus, you've returned to a dichotomous model of 'either Truth or Description'. That is, 'objective' or 'subjective'. We've done all this last year, with my discussion based on Schaff. We contine to go in circles.As to 'what I'm arguing', perhaps it might be worth actually reading what I write, as opposed to guessing 'what I'm trying to argue'.I'm not an instrumentalist (and neither was Marx), I'm a realist (and so too, I'd argue, was Marx). Why you keep going over old ground baffles me.Next, you'll return to the accusation that I'm an idealist, who ignores the real world, no matter how many times I stress 'theory and practice'.

ALB wrote:

Actually, Dewey seems to have been an interesting person.

Yes, he was. I bought that book we talked about last year, during our previous discussions: George Novack's Pragmatism versus Marxism: An appraisal of John Dewey's philosophy.Given the amount of books I've bought and read on this subject in the last twelve months, at least I'm learning something from this process. I'm actually more convinced than when I started here, about my ideological positions on 'science'.

[Young Master Smeet]

Indeed, in its own terms, fascism is not only right, but it's actions are tragically necessary to save the world from Bolshevism and the Jewish conspiracy.  That all ideologies are equally valid is the outcome of your position, not mine.  After all, is the abolition of the nation, of property and family a monstrous outcome of filthy socialist ideology?It is perfectly possible to do abhorent things scientifically: a science of torture is abomnible but does exist.  The science of the atomic bomb and autonomous killer robots exists.  Knowing how is different, though, from doing.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

We continue to go in circles.

Yes, we don't agree and are not going to. But the thing is we don't need to. We are both socialist/communists and it doesn't really matter which particular non-theistic theory of science we adopt. So this exchange is just an interesting side-show allowing those of us interested in philopsophy to clarify our respective ideas.

LBird wrote:

I'm a realist (and so too, I'd argue, was Marx).

Interesting. After all your criticism of Engels, Lenin and naive realism you are saying that Marx was some kind of "realist"? Maybe he was, but I'd be interested in what sense you think he can be so described.

LBird wrote:

I bought that book we talked about last year, during our previous discussions: George Novack's Pragmatism versus Marxism: An appraisal of John Dewey's philosophy. Given the amount of books I've bought and read on this subject in the last twelve months, at least I'm learning something from this process.

Here's a couple more books for you to read:http://www.solidarity-us.org/node/1818The appraisal of pre-WWI US Marxist thinkers in Lloyd's book seems interesting. Maybe I'll get a copy. I don't know if it's significant but it seems to be hard-line Leninists who say that Marxism and Pragmatism are  not compatible and wishy-washy social democrats who say they are. Incidentally, what was Novack's (the Trotskyist) main argument ?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Yes, we don't agree and are not going to. But the thing is we don't need to. We are both socialist/communists and it doesn't really matter which particular non-theistic theory of science we adopt. So this exchange is just an interesting side-show allowing those of us interested in philopsophy to clarify our respective ideas.

I've just thought of an explanation as to why this exchange is not just an interesting side-show.The attempt to graft 'Marx onto instrumentalism' is a scientific ideology suited to 'market socialism'. Both pretend to be about 'the social', but really retain 'individualism'. That's why money is required in the latter, because there is still private (ie. non-democratic) property.If you ask comrades to read Dewey as a basis for science, it's similar to asking comrades to read Samuelson as a basis for economics.Instrumentalism is the basis of marginal utility. Individual sovereignty in assessing 'usefulness/worth', whether in science or economics.Hope this analogy helps!

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

 I don't know if it's significant but it seems to be hard-line Leninists who say that Marxism and Pragmatism are not compatible and wishy-washy social democrats who say they are.

'Wishy-washy social democrats'? Is that a good description for the SPGB?

ALB wrote:

Incidentally, what was Novack's (the Trotskyist) main argument?

That Dewey's instrumentalism is a social product of 19th century American society.That part of his book seemed pretty well-argued and accurate, to me. Obviously, I have my differences with him, about his own ideology.

[ALB]

I think we need to go back to basics and learn what "non sequitur" means. Here's an example:Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistTherefore LBird agrees with everything Bashkar says.or (different wrong conclusion)Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistBashkar talks gibberishTherefore LBird talks gibberish.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

I think we need to go back to basics and learn what "non sequitur" means. Here's an example:Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistTherefore LBird agrees with everything Bashkar says.or (different wrong conclusion)Bashkar says he is a critical realistLBird says he is a critical realistBashkar talks gibberishTherefore LBird talks gibberish.

Yes, spot on!It makes sense to discuss with me, not Bhaskar!Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.But DJP and YMS seem to think that the links they give are telling The Truth, and so don't say what they agree with and what they don't, about their recommended reading.It's a bit like someone quoting the OED, and then being astounded when a Communist argues with a definition, as if the former regard the OED is an unimpeachable, objective, authority on words.I criticise my sources, from a Communist perpective.

[Young Master Smeet]

I tend to post links on the basis that they are interesting, and perheps worthy fo further discussion, always with the proviso that I believe all Yorkshiremen are liars and everything that follows from that statement.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.

Same here.So no more nonsense of the kind:Some instrumentalists favour "market socialism"Therefore anyone who says something favourable about something they say favours "market socialism".I even agree with some of things you say, but that doesn't mean I agree with the rest.

[LBird]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

I tend to post links on the basis that they are interesting, and perheps worthy fo further discussion, always with the proviso that I believe all Yorkshiremen are liars and everything that follows from that statement.

But you have to be aware of your own position/stance/ideology/weltanshuaang, because it is only from a point of view that one can make a judgement. Otherwise, you still have a 'position' (there is no objective position in the universe), but you are simply unaware of it, and so remain ignorant of its 'causal power' over you!It's better to be aware of one's own ideology, and best of all to expose one's ideology to others; this latter I consider fundamental to the 'scientific method'.I suppose that I'd better stress by "one's own" I mean one's choice of social ideology, rather than "we're all individuals, entitled to our own self-generated ideology", which I know will be the next accusation aimed at me, that I'm arguing for PoMo relativism.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

Many of the thinkers I refer to for some points, I disagree with on others, because I'm a democratic Communist, and they aren't.

Same here.So no more nonsense of the kind:Some instrumentalists favour "market socialism"Therefore anyone who says something favourable about something they say favours "market socialism".I even agree with some of things you say, but that doesn't mean I agree with the rest.

You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick, again, ALB.Don't take things so personal! I was merely trying to give you a hook into these issues, by comparing 'Marxist instrumentalism' (which doesn't exist, as far as I know, but you posited it for discussion) with 'Market socialism', which I'm sure you regard as a bastardisation of Marx's ideas. And so it is with 'Marxist instrumentalism'.So, it's not 'nonsense', but an explanation to help you orientate yourself.Let's keep this civilised, eh? Or you know what sort of response you'll get to accusations of me talking 'nonsense'…So, last time, 'instrumentalism' would be a good fit as a scientific ideology for 'market socialism'. I  say this to illustrate the dangers. After all, I learnt from you and alanjjohnstone about 'free access' Communism.Surely you're not beyond learning from a comrade, too, are you?

[Young Master Smeet]

But, Shirley, ideology is by almost its definition unconscious (or non-conscious)?  After all, that's why Althusser maintained that we could see ideology in literature, because it was exteriorised and, in a way, more alienated.  At least, ion most of the models (I would exclude Chomskyian versions, because of the implicit intentionalism he ascribes to ideological actors, although, again, for the objects of propaganda, knowing ideology as ideology destroys its status as ideology).

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

… ideology is by almost its definition unconscious …

Who's 'definition'?

YMS wrote:

…knowing ideology as ideology destroys its status as ideology…

That's a handy ideological claim.If one know one's ideology, one is 'ideology-free'?I don't think so!Sounds like conservatism, which is always desperate to deal with 'the real world'.No, ideology is inescapable for humans. We will forever have a 'biased' picture of the world, social and natural.Any other claim to 'Truth' is a lie, made by those who would provide the rest of us with their 'Objective Truth'.The 'truth' for every society is a 'socially-produced truth', and as we intend to build a democratic society, we have to have 'truth' under our democratic control.This ideological, Communist, belief, is entirely compatible with the SPGB's declared aim of democratic production, distribution and consumption.Any other claim for 'minority truth' is, or should be, anathaema.Elitism in science will lead to elitism in politics. The 'cadre/scientists' will tell us their Leninist Truth, and appeals for democracy will be treated as 'absurd!'. "Would you really let the workers which you see around you each day, vote on science?"My answer is 'Yes'. If our class takes control of society and its production, it takes control of science. End of.

[Young Master Smeet]

LBird wrote:

YMS wrote:

… ideology is by almost its definition unconscious …

Who's 'definition'?

Well, Marx' (according to Zizek:http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/cynicism-as-a-form-of-ideology/

Charlie(ish) wrote:

The most elementary definition of ideology is probably the well-known phrase from Marx's Capital: "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es" ("they do not know it, but they are doing it"). The very concept of ideology implies a kind of basic, constitutive naïveté: the misrecognition of its own presuppositions, of its own effective conditions, a distance, a divergence between so-called social reality and our distorted representation, our false consciousness of it.

Arguably, the dismal conservative view of humans as fallen is more suited to the notion that we will always be biased (per my mention of Tebbit before).(Article linked to for the phrase from Marx, though it is indicative of the sorts of debates that go on around this topic).

[LBird]

YMS wrote:

…the notion that we will always be biased…

Isn't that precisely what 'selection' is?A theory provides parameters of 'selection' and 'avoidance', as Carr's 'fish/fishing/fishers' analogy maintains.To seek is to hide. Finding one 'fact' involves ignoring another 'fact'.To observe is to distort.The days of 'naive realism', and Lenin's 'reflection theory', that knowledge is a 'copy' of reality, are long gone.Or, they should be.How any comrades think that this sort of 'objective truth' stuff can serve as a basis for Communist thinking, baffles me.'Critical thinking' should be our motto. We must abuse the 'facts' we are presented with!

[Author]

Posts